Obama: Assassination Of Ambassador Chris Stevens In Libya “Not Optimal”

Only in the media bubble that Barack Obama has surrounded himself in would an appearance on a The Daily Show with Jon Stewart be considered a hard-hitting interview. To Stewart’s credit he at least brought up the assassination of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in what we now know was a pre-planned terrorist attack.

Jon Stewart: “Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.”

Barack Obama: “Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it. Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.”

For those keeping score at home, this heinous attack has now been referred to by the President as “a bump in the road” and “not optimal.” The YouTube video the administration spent weeks blaming was called, “reprehensible and disgusting”, “an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well,” “crude and disgusting,” “bigotry,” and “blasphemy,”

Way to get seriously indignant about the murder of four American’s Mr. President…

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 19, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, War On Terror.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • 914

    Dum and dumber! Where’s Carl so we can complete the Trifecta?!?

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    How many Americans were killed in Afghanistan this month? At least 14. That’s even less “optimal.”

    Good that there is such a fuss over these four in Benghazi. But it’s as if people in uniform don’t matter, they’re cannon fodder, only diplomats and CIA contractors matter. Diplomats and CIA sign up for risks, too.

    Why aren’t people questioning why those 14 were killed in Afghanistan in an obviously futile war?

    • 914

      Maybe we will find out in the next debate? If the moderator can shut their pie hole long enough!

    • LiberalNightmare

      If people start to wonder about combat deaths in afghanistan this month, they might start to wonder why president and commander in chief obama still has involved in such a futile war.

      Of course, as a Gary Johnson supporter, that must be your strategy. Well played sir!

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        And Romney’s plan is for even more war. Not for his five sons, of course. Which is why I’m voting for Gary Johnson.

        • jim_m

          So you are against the volunteer army? You would propose instituting a draft, which Charles Rangel suggested for the admitted purpose of making the military weaker and not stronger?

          So you are against the military. You are in favor of making it weaker. You are in favor of forced conscription and press gangs.

          Nice little fascist nation you support there. Count me out.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            There is a difference between a moral responsibility and a legal responsibility.

            Romney beat the drums for the Vietnam war, protested in favor of the war, then took every deferment he could. Romney and his sons are running on a warmongering platform.

            None of his sons have felt the moral obligation to serve the nation in a time of war. They should put their ass where their money is, at least join the reserves or Guard.

          • jim_m

            Sorry. I deny your contention that everyone has a moral obligation to serve in the military. Not everyone is suitable for military service not everyone is capable, and some are morally opposed to it.

            You should shut your fascist mouth about people being chickenhawks. You want a state where only the military can run things? That isn’t and has never been the US. The point was that the civilian authority controlled the military in this nation. You want a military state that controls everything. If people who never served are not fit to run the country then you are saying that our Constitution is wrong and our founding fathers were in error by making the civilian government in control of the military.

            You are further stating that Founders such as Jefferson and Adams were chickenhawks because they started a war that killed thousands. Jefferson also started the Barbary war as President.

            The first Chickenhawk indeed would have been John Adams . I suppose you really hate the founding fathers of this nation for not having the balls to put their money where their mouth was and go to war or to send their children to the war.

            What you espouse is a fascist state. What you espouse is anti-democratic. If you like the military state so much why not move to one rather than trying to create one here?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            I know this is a sore point for you, jim, for as Samuel Johnson said, “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.”

            I despise those who, like Romney, have the chutzpah to malign anti-war protesters, many of them vets themselves, and who purport to support a war, then use every legal maneuver to avoid it.

            People like Romney and Cheney are hypocrites who work out their masculinity crises with the blood of those who do serve. They will be the ruin of the USA.

          • jim_m

            You are the hypocrite who claims to care about this country while despising the very people who founded it.

            Perhaps you should consider the inconsistencies in your philosophy. You cannot love the US and hate the founders. You cannot support the constitution and despise the government it creates and the people who created it.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Look, Romney is no John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson and Adams were revolutionary leaders with a price on their heads and facing the gallows. They weren’t “chicken.”

            Romney and his family have done anything they can to live in comfort while avoiding any obligation to their country.

          • jim_m

            Bullshit. I knew you would try to weasel out of your hypocrisy. Your claim has been that anyone who promotes war but does not fight or has not served is a chickenhawk. Do you think that a President does not have a price on his head? Why then the need for a Secret Service detail?

            Jefferson and Adams and the majority of the founders were all chickenhawks by your definition. They did not serve but they provoked a war.

            You are arguing from a dishonest position and ultimately the person you are most dishonest with is yourself.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Romney was not running for president when he was simultaneously protesting for the Vietnam War and evading it.

            And, Adams and Jefferson had their asses hanging out a lot more than Romney does now. They were taking on an empire. No comparison.

            If someone took a shot at Romney, it would probably end up like the end of the movie The Dead Zone.

          • Hank_M

            “Romney …. was simultaneously protesting for the Vietnam War and evading it.”

            I finally decided to look into your claim more.
            I went to that extreme right wing site, PBS.
            According to them, Romney, a freshman at the time at Stanford, wasn’t protesting FOR the war so much as protesting against the sit-in taking place at Stanford.

            Per PBS, in May 1966 while a sit-in took place….

            “Romney took to his own form of protest that spring day. Sporting khakis and a blazer, he joined a counter-demonstration seeking to restore order on the traditionally buttoned-down Stanford campus. His message, spelled out on a
            picket sign, was “Speak out, don’t sit in.”

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Might as well point out this, too… before someone like Chico falls for it.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/vietnam.asp

          • Hank_M

            Thanks. That explains even more.

          • jim_m

            Don’t confuse Chico with facts.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Dirty job, but someone’s got to do it…

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, Mitt has always disdained dirty fucking hippies.

          • Hank_M

            “Romney and his family have done anything they can to live in comfort while avoiding any obligation to their country.”

            Are you sure you didn’t mean Obama and Michelle?

            And at this point, Obama is the real chickenhawk with his continuing military losses in Afghanistan and his penchant for drone killings.
            But then, these aren’t real losses are they? Just sub optimal problems.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Seems to me like the only real obligation Romney’s got is to pay his taxes.

            Which he has – consistently.

            (Which is more than can be said about Geithner…)

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            You think you’re zinging me by hitting Geithner? He is scum.

            Again, I despise those who agitate for wars they are not willing to fight. That is Romney’s offense to the heavens.

          • Hank_M

            Ok Chico.

            How exactly did Romney agitate for wars?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            See the picture, he was protesting against anti-war protesters in 1966.

            He wanted to keep troops in Iraq, he wants more action in Syria, he wants to bomb Iran, etc. And “no apologies” even if we kill another wedding party with a drone strike. Odious.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            No, YOU believe that is Romney’s offense. I’ll follow my own thoughts on the matter, thank you kindly.

            (PS – that Geithner remark wasn’t a zing. Just pointing out how he’s evaded paying his obligation.)

          • Brucehenry

            I WOULD say that only in the mind of Jim M could expressing contempt for Romney and his sons, who never saw a war they didn’t love but never served in one, be conflated with “hating the founders.”

            But the same mindset that gave us Kerry’sBotchedJoke and YouDidn’tBuildThat is all too common on the right. Jim’s not unique in that respect.

          • jim_m

            I’ll bet you just despise all those Quakers who signed the Declaration of Independence. Al those supposed pacifists who sent thousands to die for their freedom.

            I suppose you consider them all dishonorable chickenhawks.

    • Hank_M

      What war in Afghanistan?

      Oh, right, the war the Media no longer covers…..

      • herddog505

        True, true. Remember when MiniTru used to keep a running score of US dead in Iraq and A-stan? When they, with faux sobriety, announce every milestone on the evening news?

        Weird how that stopped on 1-20-2009, eh?

        • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

          There was some attention to passing 2000 combat deaths a couple of weeks ago. NYT did a spread of the pictures of the dead.

        • Oysteria

          Allow me to correct that. It’s a “grim milestone”. Carry on.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Good one!

  • 914

    Thought “Optimal’ Had a why in it?

    Why Obama lied for 4 weeks, Why the deficit balloons every-time he screams “4!!” Why he believes his tenure as President is not too BIG to fail?? Why He lie’s when his nose is already burrowing somewhere in Libleya! !

  • herddog505

    I’d find Barry a whole lot more believable if he hadn’t spent weeks telling us that it was a spontaneous and irrepressible reaction on the part of righteously outraged Muslims over a YouTube video, that the FBI is on the case, and that the future must not belong to those who insult Islam. (WTF???)

    But for him to claim now, over a month later, that, “By golly! I’m gonna do something about this! Yessir, you just watch! ‘cuz that’s what I do when people mess with the U-S-of-A! I do something about it!” seems pretty damned thin.

    And what IS he going to do? Bomb Libya again? More drone strikes in a (Muslim) country with whom we’re not at war? Send our troops out to, you know, just bomb villages and kill people?

    It WILL be interesting to watch him, after claiming that AQ’s been (IIRC) “knocked back”, that they did it…

  • Hank_M

    Talk about out of touch!
    Not optimal??

    Well give Obama credit. In his rambling response, that is the only thing he said that is true, for him.

    The rest of his reply, the same lies we’ve been fed for 4 years.

    Side note. wait til whoopi hears that.

  • jim_m

    If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.

    Proof that I have been right all along when I say that to obama the individual means nothing. People mean nothing. A person’s life has no meaning to obama and he cares nothing about what happens to others.

    He does not care about human suffering, he only cares about himself. The man is a sociopath.

  • Vagabond661

    And all the asprin factories overseas just increased THEIR security.

  • Pingback: GOP Senators Furious Over Obama Remark on Benghazi Attack – NewsMax.com | Seismo News

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Facepalm…

  • Meiji_man

    So it’s “Not optimal” but is it within tolerance?

    With that phrase obama looses the QC vote.